Posts Tagged ‘socialism’

“We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities” – Melissa Harris-Perry, professor of political science at Tulane University and MSNBC Host (Link to Video)

Listen to me very carefully, you over-educated socialist wench:

My kids do not belong to your community. They belong to GOD and are entrusted to ME, not you.

This is very reminiscent of that belief, “it takes a village to raise a child” idiocy. It doesn’t take a village – it takes caring parents who are willing to educate their kids properly.

Perhaps the liberals of today are willing to delegate or abrogate that responsibility because they aren’t capable of doing it on their own. Perhaps the liberals of today have to defer to the community because most the kids in the public school war-zones have adopted the notion that it’s the community or governments responsibility to care for kids. Perhaps they’ve abrogated their responsibility so much that their kids would rather be cared-for by the community, because they certainly don’t get it at home. In other words, it’s another lib-crat moonbat who seeks to erode the family and the authority and blessings it holds.

If the liberals want to collectively parent their kids, they can have at it. But I’ll stick to my old-fashioned, private values and look after my own kids.

Like this:

In the light of Sandy Hook, the Lib-crats have been up in arms against the right to bear arms. And despite the fact that the law says “not infringed”, which means no violation or encroachment of the exclusive right, the socialists in Washington take the steps to divest Americans of owning weapons, by infringing on the types of weapons and ammunition that they may own.

But now, we have a Democrat in the Illinois State Senate who believes that liberties and freedoms of the First Amendment needs a little paring back. State Senator Ira Silverstein has dropped the Internet Posting Removal Act that says that if requested, a website administrator to remove all comments from people who are not willing to reveal their identity.

Now we all have to deal with trolls on the net. In most cases, they are a general nuisance because they don’t add anything of any real benefit to an otherwise intellectual conversation. Thing is, the Constitution prevents the federal Congress from making rules against any speech, including speech lacking in intellectual merit.

Since Silverstein’s work only applies to the state of Illinois,his bill has no effect on the federal level. But he wants to be able to arm-twist a web administrator to preventing people from posting anonymously or under a pseudonym.

Why? What’s the big deal with the trolls anyway? As annoying as they are, it’s not like anything that they say is really that harmful. Sometimes, they are funny. And heaven knows we get our own share of trolls out here – mostly liberals and spam bots.

Unless, this has nothing to do with mindless trolls or ghost writers, but rather, people who raise critical points against elected officials who can’t handle the criticism – which would make more sense to me.

And from what I hear of Mr. Silverstein, his skin is transparently thin. What are you afraid of, Ira? Or does the free exercise of liberty make you shake in your wingtips?

Howard Stern interviewed Elle MacPherson, recently on his show (if you call that mess a “show” and not an exhibit to debauchery, but once in a while (a great while), we see something interesting.

HOWARD STERN: Who should be the next President of the United States Elle MacPherson, go ahead.

ELLE MACPHERSON: I think Obama’s going to do it.

STERN: You like Obama?

MACPHERSON: Yeah, I’m living in London and I’m socialist. What do you expect?

STERN: And you’re living in London and you sense what other foreigners feel. Do they like him?

MACPHERSON: I think foreigners like him. He’s very popular.

STERN: Don’t we look good having a black president and everything? Makes us kind of cool.

MACPHERSON: I think it’s more about his policy. But you know there are I understand that there are a lot of people who don’t, you know, don’t want change. “We want change. We want change.” And he says, “I’ll implement change,” and you go, “Oh, actually, I don’t bleeping feel like I want change. It’s too difficult.”

Now, I’m not all that amazed that MacPherson calls herself a socialist; that doesn’t bother me in the slightest. All looks and no brain, well, that’s the standard fare for a supermodel, methinks. But what’s funny is that she likes Obama because she’s a socialist, yet, Obama doesn’t believe himself to be a socialist.

Plenty of times throughout his early presidency, Obama has deflected claims that he is a socialist or that his policies are “socialistic”. Yet, when we look at some of his policies, he continuously defers to increasing the size and scope of government because he doesn’t believe in the power of the individual. His arrogance simply tells him that raising taxes on the rich, taking more and more from people (and particularly, the rich) to allow more and more to hook up to the government spigot. Or do we need yet another review of ObamaCare, Cash for Clunkers, and his current tax plan?

So Obama is not a socialist; he just advocates for things that socialists, like Elle MacPherson, the Occupy crowd (which is raising it’s ugly head again, now that the weather is getting warm) and people like Hugo Chavez really like. Never mind the comments about “spreading the wealth” around, or some of those lofty comments about how we all have to “work together for our collective salvation”. Obama isn’t a socialist…

Another Democrat shows that when frustration sets in and things give tough, they get nasty and uncivil.

I am not a fan of Maxine Waters.

She’s been suspected of corruption by using her office to help companies and other organizations that directly benefitted in over a million dollars in profit for her family member, namely her son and daughter.

She was cited by Citizens Against Public Waste in 2009 for trying to nail down an earmark for the “Maxine Waters Employment Preparation Center”. Left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) called her out on three separate occasions as being one of the most corrupt in Congress.

She currently is under House Ethics investigation for her role in racial-cronyism by trying to save the OneUnited Bank, which received $12M in TARP money, which donated over $12,000 to her campaign coffers, and which her husband is an investor.

The latest stroke, however, comes as she was ranting on in her usual form to a group of SEIU-backed constituents. There’s nothing wrong with showing grit in the face of opposition. However, when she tells the Tea Party to go straight to hell, regardless of how

But then, we should expect that kind of unprofessional, un-statesman-like conduct from Democrats, considering that a couple of weeks back, they were calling the Tea Party a group of “terrorists”.

No, Ms. Waters, we’re not going to hell. We’re going to take your own advice, not be intimidated by the likes of socialists like you, and, instead of appealing to the forces of hell, we’re going to pray to the God in Heaven that He blesses you immeasurably.

The thing is, many of the Tea Party members that I’ve met are God-fearing, Christian people who just want government to do only what it is supposed to do and stay out of people’s way. Maxine Waters doesn’t believe this, perhaps because she’s, at best, a Christian ‘adherent”. In other words, she calls herself Christian, but it’s highly unlikely she follows Christ in any way.

Anyone who does would not tell anyone to go to hell, since they would know full well the implications of what hellfire truly is. But I guess if it’s good for votes among socialists and SEIU union drones.

Like this:

Very soon, the discussion of healthcare will enter into the American discourse with a vengeance. Very soon, ObamAd, Inc. will begin to work on its next private sector acquisition. It’s not enough that Maxine Waters threatened the CEO of Shell Oil last year with socia…er, I mean, the Government taking control of their companies. It’s not enough that GM now stands for Government Motors, vying for a big piece of that corporate pie by waiting until GM hits bankruptcy before buying up all the common stock and running GM from Washington instead of the glass towers of Detroit. It’s not enough that ObamAd, Inc has just told Chrysler, who is now in bankruptcy after trying to caulk their ship with taxpayer dollars to no avail, that their marketing and advertising budget has just been slashed by half.

No, very soon, ObamAd, Inc. will want a new bit of business, control of your health care. Through nationalizing the American health care system and mimicking the same programs as are in Europe, ObamAd Inc. will also create the same problems that are inherant with socialized medicine, that is, waiting lists, long lines for care, and rationed and prioritized care.

Meet Millvina Dean. She is the very last survivor of the Titanic disaster in April 1912. Millvina was just two months old when she was shuttled out of her quarters in third class to the deck, put onto a lifeboat, and spared with less than a third of the passengers aboard ship.

In a positive turn of events, stars of the 1996 movie Titanic, Kate Winslet, Leonardo DiCaprio, and James Cameron have graciously donated $30,000 after being challenged to match photographer Don Mullan’s donation. While this is a wonderfhl gesture, it will take care of her for just a few months. Will they plan on continuing their donations or will she resort to selling her effects again?

There are two key lessons to learn from this incident, and both relate to socialized medicine.

1) The elderly will be systmatically prioritized out of care. As insensitive as it sounds, they will be classified as too old to make a worthwhile justification for coverage. They will either become the wards of their families, forced to fund their own care as best as they can, or go without care.

2) Costs of private care will skyrocket as the government forces new regulations on doctors and insurance companies which will require additional revenue to keep up with the government’s plan.

There are far better solutions here. Personally, the ideas brought up by John C. Goodman in the March issue of Imprimis bring up some great free-market solutions that allow health care to run more like a business (consider how medical services like cosmetic surgery and vision correction, which work more free-market are very successful).

For example, what would happen if hospitals were actually required to publish their error rates (such as rates of infection, misdiagnosis, or improper perscriptions)? What would that change alone do to hospitals that would be forced to compete for business? Easy, quality of service goes up quickly; perhaps warranted care comes to fruition. Anyway, read Goodman’s article if you get a moment.

Health care in the US is about to be treated, whether it needs it or not. The current administration is all about nationalizing things, taking control of the private sector, and imposing its will on Americans.

Perhaps in a sick way, this is a good thing, since liberalism and socialism fail as a system of government, this may bring a new resurgeance of conservative government back to the center stage sooner than we think. Of course, we as conservatives need to get back to the basics of our beliefs, start living them, not backing down, and sharing them wherever we can. As much as they would like to think so, the liberals don’t own this country. And at the rate they are going, they won’t be running it for long.